Climate change politics

Concerns about climate change seems to have been buried, partly because of tepid economic growth in the developed nations seems to have led many to conclude that we can't "afford" to take on serious measures which would hurt a fragile economic recovery.

Meanwhile, the fossil fuels industry marches on, with conservatives hyping up a "energy revolution" (fracking) and the prospects of "energy independence" which will solve our economic problems, by pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere. On the immediate horizon is Obama's decision about the Keystone pipeline, put off from the election season. Canada is lobbying heavily, paying for a big advertising campaign, while at the same time threatening EU nations to go to WTO if they declare tar sands oil too polluting to be imported.

Meanwhile, even among Republicans, there seems to be a growing acceptance of the science. But the politicians won't admit it publicly, as long as the SRB can purge any GOP politician who speaks out against the orthodoxy.

Concerns about climate change seems to have been buried, partly because of tepid economic growth in the developed nations seems to have led many to conclude that we can't "afford" to take on serious measures which would hurt a fragile economic recovery.

I think some of the urgency has been taken away because CO2 emissionshave been falling.

Part of that is reduced demand from the recession, but there seem to be some bigger trends going on.

As much as environmentalists have been going after fracking, natural gas is far cleaner and puts out substantially less CO2 than burning coal. Coal power plants seem to be on the way out not because of government regulation, but because power plant operators would rather use more plentiful and cheap natural gas. The coal industry has been trying to blame Obama for their woes, but it's simple market forces.

Consumers are by and large ditching SUVs based on trucks chassis, for car-based crossovers that get substantially better gas mileage. Most new crossovers get the same gas mileage that many compact sedans did a decade ago.

I think the denial mindset reached its apex within the last 10 years, going back to the infamous Luntz memo.

Climate change is taken as a given pretty much everywhere else in the industrialized world. It's been discussed for decades. It's only in the US, within the last 10-20 years, that the denial movement took off, with concerted funding to combat what had been the prevailing wisdom.

The propaganda campaign gave the most staunch cultural conservatives another reason to resent the urban elitists who were sounding the alarm about the data showing warming trends. Not that they were particularly tied to the energy industry but it probably didn't hurt that it was based in the SE and SW of the country, where the cultural conservatives were the strongest.

The This American Life segment indicated that while a lot of the GOP electorate (I think it was 44%) accepted the science, there was still a sizable block which wouldn't recant their previous positions easily.

The problem with climate change discussions is either you specifically focus on one country and its policies, or pretend we're going to have a rich discussion that doesn't become ethnocentric in nature.

The one thing I hear is that developing nations is the big problem for a positive change in policies regarding the climate. Yet there is a concerted effort as new industry is invested in and built that they are sustainable and green. In part the rich countries sell this technology, the factories, etc., which will make the very products that are sold in the first world countries because that's a great selling point.

Energy. Same thing. For developing nations, the rich countries will sell the idea of clean green energy to developing nations. These companies have to make money and they'll try to sell their product to developing nations. Isn't China currently the biggest investor in solar energy technology?

It's obviously not so clear cut, but its only in the US I hear that the poor people in developing nations will be stuck with only 50s technology (I chose an arbitrary decade ) and don't consider for many first world countries where companies invest and produce technology used in power plants to large factories, the developing nations is a market for them.

Ensure first world nations only sell green sustainable technology to developing nations. Subsidies maybe? Oil companies are subsidized in the US, right? So, subsidies for companies invested in green technology they can sell to developing nations at affordable prices.

It's 1am here, and I'm typing this on my iPad in bed. No idea of if I made any good points at all. I don't think climate change policies have to be burdened by the concerns of what to do with developing nations. We can help them and ourselves too if done right.

For those who, in their admittedly justified frustration cry "but it's the science, stupid!", we empathize.

Science does not run human affairs. The economic and industrial interests that would be affected by any meaningful regulation in regards to climate change are massive, entrenched and mighty.

I think the political problem is tougher than that. Blaming it on a few greedy billionaires is almost too easy. The scope of the problem means any serious solution won't just impact a handful of rich people; it'll affect everyone on some level. People seem OVERWHELMINGLY opposed to admitting they, personally, might need to pay a little more or make sacrifices in their own lives. Whether it's tax rates for non-millionaires, or tinkering with common deductions, or overhauling healthcare, any change that might impact "normal" people seems to face a steep uphill battle.

Ensure first world nations only sell green sustainable technology to developing nations. Subsidies maybe? Oil companies are subsidized in the US, right?

Probably because they perceive the developed world as having benefited from subsidies, the developing world frequently subsidises product, export, and consumption from domestic fossil fuel sources. Oil firms in the U.S. only have the same tax credits as any other extractive industry, and in more recent times sometimes pay targeted tax penalties.

After reading Collapse by Jared Diamond I have become quite pessimistic about environmental causes, you are always going to have that guy who cut down the last tree on Easter Island. I think that the the only way to avoid a population crash from over using natural resources is some sort of totalitarian one world government with strict consumption and population controls. It's hard to think that is a better solution than what we have now. Currently I am just hoping that we can hold it off for a few generations.

Exactly. Our Civilization is run on energy, on carbon. From the products we produce, to the resulting pollution, it all comes down to carbon. Yet, instead of taxing and accounting for the amount of carbon we pump into the atmosphere, land, and oceans, we subsidize it though mass profits for global corporations. Of course, it is not this generation that will suffer the most, but the next one, and the one after that ect... The indiviuals running the corporations currently reaping the rewards for being allowed to pollute freely will be long dead.

Forgive my divergence, but here's a more local example of a politician denying and conflating climate change policies. New York's public transit had a robust plan in place for "climate change," allowing it to react well to Sandy. New Jersey Transit didn't. They had a 3-page plan.

When asked, in relation to the damage suffered, had he (Gov. Christie (R)) done enough to prepare state agencies for climate change?

Yes, he just said: Sandy wasn't caused by climate change, I'm not responsible for the poor planning policies.

So, in addition to the larger problem of the costs of pollution not being accrued to the offenders, politicians (at least this one) will hand-wave away responsibility for the response to natural disasters by denying climate change.

After reading Collapse by Jared Diamond I have become quite pessimistic about environmental causes, you are always going to have that guy who cut down the last tree on Easter Island. I think that the the only way to avoid a population crash from over using natural resources is some sort of totalitarian one world government with strict consumption and population controls.

The last grove of trees on Easter Island was very valuable, if not for agriculture then as a source of new trees. We can infer that the last tree was harvested by someone who couldn't benefit from a standing tree, but could profit by cutting it down. In other words this is likely to have been a tragedy of the commons or rogue action.

Or, because of the drastically reduced tree cover on the island, severe storms managed to damage and fell any remaining trees. You don't need to completely destroy an environment to tip it into catastrophic decline. One only need look at massive increases in soil erosion and flooding in formerly dense rainforests that have been cleared for industrial agriculture.

The solution is to price greenhouse gas emmissions. But there's no political incentive to do so in an even manner, and lots of effort to game it.

You've already lost half the game when the subject is shifted from pricing GHG emissions to pricing just CO^2 emissions. The latter presupposes that burning fossil fuel is nearly the sole source of GHG, when reality is more nuanced and requires more nuanced change.

I'm pretty sure our descendents will look back at us with the same disgust with which we look at slavers. Possibly worse. The legacy of slavery is something which we can conceivably "fix" within meaningful human time scales. Climate change, not so much.

Or maybe I'm being overly pessimistic. Perhaps all the population displacement and economic devastation will be contained within the next two hundred years or so, after which civilisation will have adapted to the new norm. Let's look on the bright side here!

Politically, the correct answer will have to be to sell green technological benefits in a non-green way.

I remember some time ago there was a study where a bunch of people were asked to buy a light bulb (they were given sufficient money to buy either) from a selection of two. There was a standard incandescent bulb and some sort of energy efficient bulb. The energy efficient bulb was cheaper and the subjects were allowed to keep whatever cash they had left over. The subjects almost uniformly chose the energy efficient bulb.

After that they repeated the test except this time the energy efficient bulb had a label indicating it was green. This time they found that who bought it now depended on their political views. Those on the far left continued to prefer the energy efficient bulb, those who were somewhat left wing had no preference between the bulbs, and the centrists and right wingers now preferred the incandescent bulb.

Politically, the correct answer will have to be to sell green technological benefits in a non-green way.

I remember some time ago there was a study where a bunch of people were asked to buy a light bulb (they were given sufficient money to buy either) from a selection of two. There was a standard incandescent bulb and some sort of energy efficient bulb. The energy efficient bulb was cheaper and the subjects were allowed to keep whatever cash they had left over. The subjects almost uniformly chose the energy efficient bulb.

After that they repeated the test except this time the energy efficient bulb had a label indicating it was green. This time they found that who bought it now depended on their political views. Those on the far left continued to prefer the energy efficient bulb, those who were somewhat left wing had no preference between the bulbs, and the centrists and right wingers now preferred the incandescent bulb.

Politically, the correct answer will have to be to sell green technological benefits in a non-green way.

I remember some time ago there was a study where a bunch of people were asked to buy a light bulb (they were given sufficient money to buy either) from a selection of two. There was a standard incandescent bulb and some sort of energy efficient bulb. The energy efficient bulb was cheaper and the subjects were allowed to keep whatever cash they had left over. The subjects almost uniformly chose the energy efficient bulb.

After that they repeated the test except this time the energy efficient bulb had a label indicating it was green. This time they found that who bought it now depended on their political views. Those on the far left continued to prefer the energy efficient bulb, those who were somewhat left wing had no preference between the bulbs, and the centrists and right wingers now preferred the incandescent bulb.

Depressing? It should make you fucking ecstatic. The roadmap on selling greentech is right there.

I'm not so sure about that. Selling green tech based on efficiency rather than environmentalism may be effective, but only when that efficiency actually exists.

How do you sell environmental solutions when they're not as efficient (in terms of short-term economic impact)? Fossil fuels are, and will be for quite some time, far and away the cheapest energy source for most needs. Do you argue based on the predicted costs of preventative action vs mitigation? If people value political identity over their own personal best interests, I really doubt that selling it as "compare the cost now to the cost over 100 years" is likely to be an effective strategy either.

Another big issue is that "CO2 offsets" have somehow become a bad thing. Even among colleagues who firmly believe in climate change, who will pay more for energy efficient products, and who have the disposable cash and inclination to make charitable contributions... I don't know anyone who offsets their CO2 emissions. Their first reaction is immediately one of distrust and it's only after realizing that some of the organizations they support (e.g. the WWF) have certified some offset providers that they become more amenable to it.

It's such a simple and obvious idea. I can't avoid flying by plane if I want to be engaged in my profession, but I can internalize the cost of my pollution. I can finance an investment that helps reduce the same amount of pollution elsewhere, where it can be done with little cost (and often with positive spillover effects). What's a $10 surcharge on the price of an intercontinental flight?

But if even people who want to do something about climate change aren't willing to do this, what chance do we have to agree on some kind of global market of the sort? There's no way around offsetting emissions, even if we demand that it be done within a given country (which would massively increase the cost of doing so, while providing no meaningful benefit).

The problem with offsets is that when they first appeared there was no real regulation governing them, so it became a bit like "free range eggs" or "organic food". Greenwashing, basically. People learned to distrust offset schemes because they didn't like to be conned.

I don't know what the situation is like now, but if our governments would get off their collective asses and make some global agreements on this sort of shit, it would probably help. I'd be much more inclined to pay for a carbon offset if I know the ACCC will be prosecuting anyone lying about it.

There is a certification that is recognized by the UN, a number of governments, and over 80 NGOs (including Greenpeace and the WWF): http://www.cdmgoldstandard.org/They don't sell offsets directly (being a certification body), but they do provide links to partners around the world. They've been around for nearly a decade.

I wouldn't have heard of them if I hadn't looked into this... which makes me think this might be a colossal failure of marketing? Ideally, I'd like to see for-profit companies offering these certified offsets, but finding projects that can do so at even lower costs (i.e. competing with non-profits). This was a fruitful area for some financial firms when there was a belief that an international agreement may impose an offset requirement on companies that would then look for such projects to invest in. Alas, that didn't happen.

But if even people who want to do something about climate change aren't willing to do this, what chance do we have to agree on some kind of global market of the sort? There's no way around offsetting emissions, even if we demand that it be done within a given country (which would massively increase the cost of doing so, while providing no meaningful benefit).

I think this is akin to people who say "well why don't you pay extra taxes if you feel like the rates are too low". A few people buying offsets isn't going to achieve anything of use. We can only accomplish meaningful changes at the national and international level. Letting the market decide--which is what voluntary offsets represent--has already completely failed.

I do agree that there is some failure of marketing there, and that carbon offsets started out in a kind of wild west situation that led to skepticism. But it's not reasonable to expect people to throw money at a broken system as a way of proving their will.

I'm not sure why anyone would be pleased by "people are idiots, but there might be a workaround".

Beats the alternative.

The alternative of people not being idiots?

I reject the false dichotomy that you're implying. You can't ensure that everyone agrees, but it's clear that the US at least could do a shitload better at the social contract than the current catastrophe.

Politically, the correct answer will have to be to sell green technological benefits in a non-green way.

I remember some time ago there was a study where a bunch of people were asked to buy a light bulb (they were given sufficient money to buy either) from a selection of two. There was a standard incandescent bulb and some sort of energy efficient bulb. The energy efficient bulb was cheaper and the subjects were allowed to keep whatever cash they had left over. The subjects almost uniformly chose the energy efficient bulb.

After that they repeated the test except this time the energy efficient bulb had a label indicating it was green. This time they found that who bought it now depended on their political views. Those on the far left continued to prefer the energy efficient bulb, those who were somewhat left wing had no preference between the bulbs, and the centrists and right wingers now preferred the incandescent bulb.